|
   |
Home >> Forum >> Aloha Airlines to shut down operations, after March 31, 2008 Civil aviation forum
Aloha Airlines to shut down operations, after March 31, 2008
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of Werkur737 - Sent 31 Mar 2:14 |
|
| |
Unfortunately after 61 years of operations, Aloha Airlines will shut down after March 31, 2008.
The official announcement:
http://www.alohaairlines.com/landing_pages/aloha_oe_news_release.php
The Hawaii inter-islands connections will suffer a lot, the airline has a successful story and will end up like this.
I hated to know that, i flew some times with this great airline, always was one of the best US airline services into Hawaii islands as Hawaiian Airlines connot compete.
Just imagine how many people will have to find another way to go to Hawaii inter-islands. I doubt another airline will offers a great service like it was with Aloha, one of my favorites airlines. I am more sad and thinking on Aloha's employees and people of Hawaii, that proudly gave many of their years dedicated to this airline.
Your thoughts appreciated!
Best Regards!
Werner
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Werkur737 - Sent 31 Mar 2:59 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Werkur737 - Sent 31 Mar 3:07 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 31 Mar 11:35 |
|
| |
Thanks for the news. It's a bit sad but not surprising.
Before the arrival of Go!, the Hawaiian inter-island mkt has been dominated by AQ(Aloha) and HA(Hawaiian) and their subsidaries. As these flights typically don't last much more than 1hr, fares had always been relatively high and it was very common to pay US$150-200 for a R/T interisland ticket.
All these dramatically changed when Go! entered Hawaii about 2yrs ago and consistently offer low $50 1-way fares between any major Hawaiian island airports. Since Go! is basically a LCC operating only CRJs, costs are substantially lower than HA and AQ. Still, both hv been actively trying to match Go!'s low fares but I suspect it has been more difficult for AQ. 1st, HA flies 717 on interisland which has op costs closer to CRJ and cheaper to operate than AQ's 737(Including 737NGs). 2nd, HA interisland is fed directly by huge volume of U.S. mainland traffic on HA's large 763 fleet(18 units I believe) and supplemented by their int'l flights to SYD+MNL. In contrast, AQ flies higher op cost 737(Some are still 732 gas-guzzler) on interisland which I always think is too much performance+weight for such short hops. Although AQ is also fed by direct U.S. mainland traffic fm their own longer-range 73Gs, the volume and the per seat cost can't be compared with HA's 763s. For these reasons, I hv always suspected that AQ will be the 1st to exit the Hawaiian interisland price war.
On the other hand, I do notice a very active HA in the past few yrs and in the coming yrs. Their plan seem to be much more ambitious than AQ in expanding their network such as more U.S. mainland flights, adding Asia-Pcf destinations(e.g. SYD+MNL) and future routes to Europe. HA hv also recently ordered A358 to replace their 763s. Going beyond Hawaii and growing to become more like a network int'l carrier may be the key reasons why HA flairs better than AQ in the face of aggressive & nimble local LCC competitors like Go!.
Flown on AQ's YVR-HNL route(Their longest flight) 4yrs ago on their 73G. Surprising/Refreshingly good inflight service and really is the best U.S. domestic(Ok, YVR is not exactly a U.S. domestic city but AQ's other U.S. west coast service should be similar to it) carrier I hv ever flown. I hv also tried AQ interisland a few times and to be honest, the services were not much diff than HA's(Well, how far can they differentiate for a 40mins flight?). I do hv a slight preference for HA due to their newer 717(Also less cabin noise as those super quiet+efficient BMW/RollsRoyce turbofans are located way back on the tail).
I hv planned to return to Kauai+Maui via HNL this Oct flying either HA or Go!(I'm curious to learn what is it like flying in a CRJ cabin narrower than 737/717 but guaranteed to hv no middle seat). Hope the fall of AQ won't bump-up those $50 fares....fingers crossed....
I also wonder what will happen to AQ's vast check-in area @ HNL(Roughly 50% of all check-in counters in HNL Interisland Terminal). I don't think HA can take over all and make it a HA exclusive terminal in the short term. Does it mean Go! will move-in fm their current HNL Commuter Terminal(Not a convenient location and unlike the Interisland Terminal, a long walk fm the HNL Overseas Terminal)?
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Spot planes - Sent 01 Apr 8:38 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Werkur737 - Sent 01 Apr 9:33 |
|
| |
FLX,
Thanks for your very good explanation about AQ, and also a comparison on HA and the long-haul flights(18 B767-300/ER, some from second hand), which helps the airline supports some inter-islands routes with its B717-200.
Right, the CRJs of Go! has lower costs as you said, also the cabin 2 + 2 seats configuration, a LCC airline with basically $50 fares on the same service of AQ, with its B737s, i will not re-write, you did correctly!
Three important points i see:
1) If any airline in US and also worldwide, some time need to match lower costs to compete with a LCC airline, lower costs, etc....we will have the worst times for aviation than ever. Simply the inflight service will drop on quality very significantly as we never saw before. I think still exists some kind of pax which considers a reasonable kind of food as needed, even a simple sandwich on an 1hour flight, not only snacks! Sometimes you leave the hotel and/or your home without take any food, go to the airport an hour or two before to get the flight, so for sure you wanna eat a simple sandwich and/or a couple of chocolate chip muffins as breakfast with a hot coffee to drink, which are not snacks!
2) I ever thought about Aloha, as an airline dedicated to Hawaiian islands almost at all. I think about the AQ's California flights such as San Diego and Santa Ana, as secondary for the airline, not as primary ever!
I don't think as Hawaiian Airlines do and wanna to expand, i mean its long-haul services with its B763s, from US west mainland services and from/to Honolulu and maybe to SYD+MNL also, as very needed to survive on today's age on an aviation market.
I ever thought about AQ as an airline dedicated to Hawaii, and i do believe on the possibility to an airline can survives on Hawaii's market without going to long-haul services. Remember that AQ has a flight agreement with United Airlines from some time ago, which can feed AQ services from US mainland and did succesfully till now!
3)Also the CRJs services of Go! dropped the flights on quality a lot, simply because even with 2+2 seats layout, better than 3+3 of the AQ 737's, but a 737 has three toilets and a CRJ has only one. If you consider the 737 with about 130 pax, it's the -200 and -700 series, with three toilets, it's much better than a CRJ with about 50 pax and only one toilet, don't you think?
Finnaly i hope any airline, like the successfully JetBlue, go to Hawaii and maybe make strongly competition, facing Go! and match the Hawaiian market again, like was with AQ, but maybe JetBlue can use its E190-100IGW, which its much better than a CRJ still is 2+2 seats layout, but would be much better comfort to the pax!
About the vast AQ check-in area at HNL, going to any airline and the inter-island terminal, a long walk to overseas terminal, maybe a re-design at HNL is also needed, i cannot say how to do it for the best pax convenience, but sure will be made!
The 732 in AQ fleet i believe it was the only wrong move made by the airline, because they also had the 73G flying at the same time, you know what i mean, i cannot need to make a comparison!
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 03 Apr 12:13 |
|
| |
Werkur737:
Glad my comments make sense to U. A few further thoughts re your points:
1) I think what U've described is the traditional <full service> model which in some mkts(Particularly longer range trunk routes such as ORD/MSP/EWR-HNL, JFK-LAX/SFO, etc.), I totally agree sufficient demand do exist for a few <full-service> carriers to thrive and UA's p.s. routes are perfect examples of this type. However, Go! wouldn't hv a chance in Hawaii if low-fare focused pax(Basically those buying the <no-frill> model) represent only a minority and the majority wish to pay+fly the <full service> model on AQ or HA. Go! was a totally unknown brand 2yrs ago and yet, it's lasting longer than AQ. Only 1 explanation: <no-frill> segment is much bigger than <full-service> segment in the Hawaii interisland mkt. It's precisely the mkt(us, the paying pax), as a whole, which has voted to kill AQ and other <full service> model airlines operating 1hr or less flights. Apparently, not enough of us in the mkt consistently leave the hotel and/or our home without take any food, go to the airport an hour or two before to get the flight, and for sure wanna eat a simple sandwich and/or a couple of chocolate chip muffins as breakfast with a hot coffee to drink inflight...
2) If AQ's strategy was to focus on being a regional airline flying only within Hawaii and mostly 30-45min segments, their fleet type(Fm 732s to 737NG) has been seriously wrong for decades and especially deadly today given the high oil prices. Today, U simply can't find any regional airlines in N.America flying anything bigger than the RJ category on sectors of 1.5hr or less. RJ may be less comfortable than mainline jet(i.e. 737/A320) but it certainly is a lot more cost-effective than 732 for Hawaii Interisland short hops. In other words, Go! has been on the right track with aircraft category. UA+AQ codeshare may be successful but it still couldn't save AQ. Personally, codeshare(HA also has codeshare with a few SkyTeam airlines) is similar but will never be equivalent to single carrier thru service like what HA is doing.
3) Many Americans spend about 45mins 1 way commuting to/fm work on cars without toilet everyday. Unless the bio condition of an avg airline pax demand he/she uses the toilet every 45mins or less, the diff between 43.3pax to 1 toilet(737) vs 50pax to 1 toilet(CRJ) on a 45mins flight is, in reality, really tiny don't U think? At the minimum, I won't consider that diff as <dropped the flights on quality A LOT>. Now that U mentioned it, I now realized that I hv never used the toilet during any of the 6 Hawaii interisland flights I hv taken in the past(If needed, I usually took advantage of the terminal facilities before/after flight). In contrast, I usually do spend the majority of that 45mins in my own seat and it really helps if it's impossible to be in the middle.
If JetBlue does come to Hawaii someday, only their E190(Or even E170) will make sense for interisland ops. I also think there's too little diff between CRJ900(Go! is flying the older/smaller CRJ200) and E190 in terms of cabin comfort.
I remember the HNL Interisland terminal is phyiscally connected/attached to the Overseas terminal so pax just hv to walk a few steps(Less than 5m) and its all indoor. It's the Commuter terminal(Go! is here) that requires a long walk(All outdoor) to/fm the Overseas/Interisland terminal complex.
When AQ 1st flew 732 in 69, it was the right move as the only other real alternatives were DC9(An even older design) and there was no RJ. The real mistake is they never replaced the 732s on interisland routes even after RJs became available. 73G is obviously lot more fuel efficient than 732 but will still be too heavy/costly to operate for such frequent and short island hops. AQ used 73G mostly on U.S. Westcoast ops and rarely for interisland(Except repositioning such as LAS-OGG-HNL-SEA).
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|